DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed. ![rolleyes :rolleyes: :rolleyes:](/data/assets/smilies/8rolleyes8.gif)
![rolleyes :rolleyes: :rolleyes:](/data/assets/smilies/8rolleyes8.gif)
VPN companies are standing byKids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
I know everybody is hung up on the porn part of this, and that's a halfway decent analogy to kids buying booze. Maybe we don't really care if a 16 year-old has a few beers at a party, but we wouldn't want that same kid to be knocking back a boilermaker before homeroom every morning. So we age-restrict alcohol, under no illusions that it's airtight. That's fine.Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids
I'm not sure. I'm thinking primarily stuff like TikTok and Twitter/X, but I'm open to persuasion on how broad a ban we should be talking about here. For example, suppose we simply "banned" anybody under the age of 16 (?) from accessing any site on the internet. I'm not advocating that*, and I doubt it would be especially workable, but I feel extremely confident that that such a restriction would pass any conceivable cost-benefit calculation. There is very little benefit to be gained by allowing a 13 year-old to scroll through Reddit, for example, but there is a lot of potential and unquantifiable harm from allowing that same kid unfettered access to the Mental Health Crisis Machine.but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids
How are you defining "social media"?
I know everybody is hung up on the porn part of this, and that's a halfway decent analogy to kids buying booze. Maybe we don't really care if a 16 year-old has a few beers at a party, but we wouldn't want that same kid to be knocking back a boilermaker before homeroom every morning. So we age-restrict alcohol, under no illusions that it's airtight. That's fine.
That people figure out how to circumvent laws is no reason to not have them at all.Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
Sure but I had to work pretty hard to get my hands on weed when I was 15 and 75% of my efforts failed. We've now lifted many of the regulations on marijuana and it's become easier than ever for kids to get their hands on it- especially in nearly impossible to trace edibles and vapes. Of course some kids are going to find ways around any restriction but we should at least consider some restrictions so we don't flood the market so much that they become ubiquitous. Obstacles will prevent some people from accessing either because they can't figure it out or because it's enough effort to get them to reconsider. On a very simply term, think of it like an adult with a drinking problem. It's probably a good idea they dump out all their bottles of liquor. Sure at any point they can get in their car and go buy a bottle but that little extra effort and the fact the bottles aren't just staring at them in the kitchen is often enough of a barrier to keep people a little more sober.Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
Yes, if we expect any law or regulation to have 100% effectiveness than we might as well just give up on society.That people figure out how to circumvent laws is no reason to not have them at all.Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
Why should we have speed limits when people still speed?
thats what i said but you used a lot less words and punctuation and stuff take that to the bank bromigoThat people figure out how to circumvent laws is no reason to not have them at all.Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
Why should we have speed limits when people still speed?
I stated this upstream so hate to repost it but the point hasn’t been addressed. The booze and weed restrictions arguments are natural parallels, on the surface. But in reality are not similar at all. The restrictions on those actually have teeth because it requires a in-person age verifiable purchase. So of course any reasonable person can and should get behind them. As we all know that’s simply not the case online. Therefore any restrictions are going to be far far less effective and orders of magnitude easier to circumvent. Is a restriction that comes with all the downsides (privacy, id safety, more government intervention, etc etc) really worth a sieve like law so we can feel like we’re “doing something”?Sure but I had to work pretty hard to get my hands on weed when I was 15 and 75% of my efforts failed. We've now lifted many of the regulations on marijuana and it's become easier than ever for kids to get their hands on it- especially in nearly impossible to trace edibles and vapes. Of course some kids are going to find ways around any restriction but we should at least consider some restrictions so we don't flood the market so much that they become ubiquitous. Obstacles will prevent some people from accessing either because they can't figure it out or because it's enough effort to get them to reconsider. On a very simply term, think of it like an adult with a drinking problem. It's probably a good idea they dump out all their bottles of liquor. Sure at any point they can get in their car and go buy a bottle but that little extra effort and the fact the bottles aren't just staring at them in the kitchen is often enough of a barrier to keep people a little more sober.Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
I don't think anyone (not anyone here anyway) is saying that the solution is simple.This is much more complicated than seat belts or speeding limits. The only unintended consequence with seat belts was your cousin with the story about how his friend was thrown clear of the wreck, and seat belts woulda killed him.
No one is really even pretending it's gonna work very well, you have privacy concerns that are completely valid (oh hey, kid scan YOUR FACE on the phone), and kids can just be awful to each other on video games or Snapchat.
It's a symptom, not the problem. Does it make it worse? Yeah.
There have been studies that show social media is harming children. I think the devil is in some of the algorithms that social media companies use and we can even point to direct ways they harm kids, but there is no accountability to be had because these companies aren't the parents.I'm not sure. I'm thinking primarily stuff like TikTok and Twitter/X, but I'm open to persuasion on how broad a ban we should be talking about here. For example, suppose we simply "banned" anybody under the age of 16 (?) from accessing any site on the internet. I'm not advocating that*, and I doubt it would be especially workable, but I feel extremely confident that that such a restriction would pass any conceivable cost-benefit calculation. There is very little benefit to be gained by allowing a 13 year-old to scroll through Reddit, for example, but there is a lot of potential and unquantifiable harm from allowing that same kid unfettered access to the Mental Health Crisis Machine.but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids
How are you defining "social media"?
*Seriously, I know this is too much. I'm putting this out there as an extreme example to make a point about the relative costs and benefits of allowing kids access to the internet. Aside from a few streaming services and highly-curated educational sites, I think it's pretty obvious that the internet provides negative value for children. It's great for adults, and it would be better for all parties if we could remove kids from this particular picture. And besides, I'm an incrementalist by nature and I'd like to find a relatively light-touch way of handling this if at all possible, preferably one that doesn't put adults out too much. It's just that we've tried my most-preferred approach of "Do nothing and hope for the best," and that didn't work.
The emoji was for the urban myth surrounding the uproar about seat belts.I like you @massraider , but there's no need for a belittling lol emoji.
And I didn't say why bother.The speed limit example was used to refute the idea of "why try if some are going to figure out a work around".
Further, I refute the idea of "well it's really difficult, so why bother"?
Well okay. Then the thoughts are intermingling a bit where intent wasn't clear.The emoji was for the urban myth surrounding the uproar about seat belts.I like you @massraider , but there's no need for a belittling lol emoji.
The only person belittled there was my cousin the liar. If you are indeed my cousin, I am sorry.
And I didn't say why bother.The speed limit example was used to refute the idea of "why try if some are going to figure out a work around".
Further, I refute the idea of "well it's really difficult, so why bother"?
I said nothing about porn. I made an obvious joke that this will not be a deterrent to any kid that wants to visit XYZ website.I know everybody is hung up on the porn part of this, and that's a halfway decent analogy to kids buying booze. Maybe we don't really care if a 16 year-old has a few beers at a party, but we wouldn't want that same kid to be knocking back a boilermaker before homeroom every morning. So we age-restrict alcohol, under no illusions that it's airtight. That's fine.Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
The social media part is much more interesting and important to me. Maybe this is too optimistic, but I think you can actually make a lot of headway here just by breaking up the network effects. If a few kids work around it with a VPN (again, lol), no problem. The important thing is that their entire peer group isn't online. That tremendously reduces the peer pressure draw that exists today, and would make it easier for parents like @moops to hold the line in their own households.
I have no data to back this up, but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids this age than Pornhub. Not that Pornhub isn't terrible for people who are still processing their own sexuality, but look at the rates of mental illness among kids. I don't think social media/phones is the only thing going on here, but these both started at roughly the same time, and the causal mechanism is intuitively obvious. We all know from first-hand experience that social media is a toxic environment, even for fully-grown, self-actualized adults. This isn't a "get off my lawn" thing, thought I'm sure it will get written off that way.
I wouldn't make that argument myself. I would, however, consider the ease of undermining any particular rule in the overall calculation of costs and benefits. As a completely made up example, if we know for a fact that 98% of all users would be able to easily circumvent theCan somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.
I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.
Well my argument at least isn’t that we shouldn’t try, it’s that this isn’t the right solution. We haven’t found the right solution yet. But I think if we are going to result to government intervention, i.e. them having more control over our lives, then we need to be incredibly diligent and thoughtful about any law that does that. Government by and large is incredibly inefficient and easily corruptible. I personally don’t want to give them any more control than we absolutely have to.Can somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.
I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.
I’m curious as to what the penalty is for violating this law. Will there be internet police giving out tickets?That people figure out how to circumvent laws is no reason to not have them at all.Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
Why should we have speed limits when people still speed?
That's all.it’s that this isn’t the right solution.
I could not agree more. I was just listening to a podcast with Jonathan Haidt about the mental health crisis among young people that has developed in the last 12 or so years that have grown up with social media. He cites to a lot of data on this. I'm not generally someone who applauds aggressive regulation but this phenomenon needs to be addressed, and I think there's a collective action problem with just relying solely on individual parents to do so (though I'll certainly be doing my best as a parent of young kids).I know everybody is hung up on the porn part of this, and that's a halfway decent analogy to kids buying booze. Maybe we don't really care if a 16 year-old has a few beers at a party, but we wouldn't want that same kid to be knocking back a boilermaker before homeroom every morning. So we age-restrict alcohol, under no illusions that it's airtight. That's fine.Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
The social media part is much more interesting and important to me. Maybe this is too optimistic, but I think you can actually make a lot of headway here just by breaking up the network effects. If a few kids work around it with a VPN (again, lol), no problem. The important thing is that their entire peer group isn't online. That tremendously reduces the peer pressure draw that exists today, and would make it easier for parents like @moops to hold the line in their own households.
I have no data to back this up, but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids this age than Pornhub. Not that Pornhub isn't terrible for people who are still processing their own sexuality, but look at the rates of mental illness among kids. I don't think social media/phones is the only thing going on here, but these both started at roughly the same time, and the causal mechanism is intuitively obvious. We all know from first-hand experience that social media is a toxic environment, even for fully-grown, self-actualized adults. This isn't a "get off my lawn" thing, thought I'm sure it will get written off that way.
AgreedThat's all.it’s that this isn’t the right solution.
Can somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.
I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.
There have been studies that show social media is harming children. I think the devil is in some of the algorithms that social media companies use and we can even point to direct ways they harm kids, but there is no accountability to be had because these companies aren't the parents.I'm not sure. I'm thinking primarily stuff like TikTok and Twitter/X, but I'm open to persuasion on how broad a ban we should be talking about here. For example, suppose we simply "banned" anybody under the age of 16 (?) from accessing any site on the internet. I'm not advocating that*, and I doubt it would be especially workable, but I feel extremely confident that that such a restriction would pass any conceivable cost-benefit calculation. There is very little benefit to be gained by allowing a 13 year-old to scroll through Reddit, for example, but there is a lot of potential and unquantifiable harm from allowing that same kid unfettered access to the Mental Health Crisis Machine.but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids
How are you defining "social media"?
*Seriously, I know this is too much. I'm putting this out there as an extreme example to make a point about the relative costs and benefits of allowing kids access to the internet. Aside from a few streaming services and highly-curated educational sites, I think it's pretty obvious that the internet provides negative value for children. It's great for adults, and it would be better for all parties if we could remove kids from this particular picture. And besides, I'm an incrementalist by nature and I'd like to find a relatively light-touch way of handling this if at all possible, preferably one that doesn't put adults out too much. It's just that we've tried my most-preferred approach of "Do nothing and hope for the best," and that didn't work.
My personal feeling is that parenting is getting softer and weaker and the collective American way of life wants some sort of easy button from the government to keep their kids safe and healthy. I don't find idea to be realistic and think the accountability needs to start at home.
I'm in no way a perfect parent with my kids and social media. My two oldest are boys (16,18) and they never took much interest to social media. I was also never overly concerned about what they would get into. My two youngest are girls (14,12), and neither are allowed to have facebook, tiktok or snapchat, but they find ways around it. Its very hard to stay on top of them, but it's needed. There are some common sense rules parents can put in place to monitor kid's online usage, but a lot of them are too lazy or busy to do it.
I think it's time to reinvest in our communities. The adults in the room are failing the younger generations for a variety of reasons. I've seen some horrific parents out there and generally feel bad for those kids. I think the best someone can do right now is address their home first and then help neighbors who may be struggling to navigate these issues.I could not agree more. I was just listening to a podcast with Jonathan Haidt about the mental health crisis among young people that has developed in the last 12 or so years that have grown up with social media. He cites to a lot of data on this. I'm not generally someone who applauds aggressive regulation but this phenomenon needs to be addressed, and I think there's a collective action problem with just relying solely on individual parents to do so (though I'll certainly be doing my best as a parent of young kids).I know everybody is hung up on the porn part of this, and that's a halfway decent analogy to kids buying booze. Maybe we don't really care if a 16 year-old has a few beers at a party, but we wouldn't want that same kid to be knocking back a boilermaker before homeroom every morning. So we age-restrict alcohol, under no illusions that it's airtight. That's fine.Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
The social media part is much more interesting and important to me. Maybe this is too optimistic, but I think you can actually make a lot of headway here just by breaking up the network effects. If a few kids work around it with a VPN (again, lol), no problem. The important thing is that their entire peer group isn't online. That tremendously reduces the peer pressure draw that exists today, and would make it easier for parents like @moops to hold the line in their own households.
I have no data to back this up, but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids this age than Pornhub. Not that Pornhub isn't terrible for people who are still processing their own sexuality, but look at the rates of mental illness among kids. I don't think social media/phones is the only thing going on here, but these both started at roughly the same time, and the causal mechanism is intuitively obvious. We all know from first-hand experience that social media is a toxic environment, even for fully-grown, self-actualized adults. This isn't a "get off my lawn" thing, thought I'm sure it will get written off that way.
What sites, beyond the obvious, require age verification? I guess I don’t visit any when I’m in Utah skiing.Can somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.
I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.
I would assume it's just a matter of upping the nuisance factor while accomplishing little to nothing. Do you really want to have to have your ID next to you while using the internet, scanning it into the webcam every so often? This already exists in Utah. It's very annoying at times.
Sorry -- I read your post in the context of several porn-related posts and read something into yours that wasn't there. My fault.I said nothing about porn. I made an obvious joke that this will not be a deterrent to any kid that wants to visit XYZ website.I know everybody is hung up on the porn part of this, and that's a halfway decent analogy to kids buying booze. Maybe we don't really care if a 16 year-old has a few beers at a party, but we wouldn't want that same kid to be knocking back a boilermaker before homeroom every morning. So we age-restrict alcohol, under no illusions that it's airtight. That's fine.Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
The social media part is much more interesting and important to me. Maybe this is too optimistic, but I think you can actually make a lot of headway here just by breaking up the network effects. If a few kids work around it with a VPN (again, lol), no problem. The important thing is that their entire peer group isn't online. That tremendously reduces the peer pressure draw that exists today, and would make it easier for parents like @moops to hold the line in their own households.
I have no data to back this up, but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids this age than Pornhub. Not that Pornhub isn't terrible for people who are still processing their own sexuality, but look at the rates of mental illness among kids. I don't think social media/phones is the only thing going on here, but these both started at roughly the same time, and the causal mechanism is intuitively obvious. We all know from first-hand experience that social media is a toxic environment, even for fully-grown, self-actualized adults. This isn't a "get off my lawn" thing, thought I'm sure it will get written off that way.
Do you have kids? My daughter was the last one to get a phone in her age group. She was the last one to get any/all of the socials. And once she had them I monitored her activity like the Politboro. I age restricted everything much to her annoyance. Until she proved to me that she was responsible enough to not be monitored. SOCIAL MEDIA IS THE WORST. I’d argue that it’s just as bad for adults than kids. My wife doesn’t have it. I barely use it. I do lurk too muchthe only reason I have any of it, was to keep tabs on my daughter.
This 100% falls on the parents. What’s next? The government forbids dating until 18? * Because teenage breakups my friend, are the WORSTEST.
*this is another obvious (I hope) joke
The answer to this question is yes. People lie about their age to get on Facebook, though not as big of an issue now since Facebook isn't very popular among young people. But this also happens with dating apps, and I assume other social media.FWIW, I believe Facebook requires parental consent to create an account under a certain age. I'm not sure if you can get around that by just lying about your age
Very true. My kids are trying to get on Discord all the time. Its way worse than facebook.The answer to this question is yes. People lie about their age to get on Facebook, though not as big of an issue now since Facebook isn't very popular among young people. But this also happens with dating apps, and I assume other social media.FWIW, I believe Facebook requires parental consent to create an account under a certain age. I'm not sure if you can get around that by just lying about your age
1. Kids in middle school learn what VPNs are because they are often necessary to get around restrictions that the school has set on their Chromebooks/iPads/wifi. Most kids probably already use a VPN to look at porn so that their parents can't see it if they monitor DNS logs or have parent filters setup on their home wifi.Can somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.
I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.
This doesn't require a tinfoil hat at all. Previous legislation (that did not come to pass, but was certainly debated in Congress) that proposed to ban TikTok also proposed banning VPNs.And if you want to put on your tinfoil hat, the next step would be to ban VPNs.
All totally fair and I am not necesarily 100% in favor of legislation. I would need to see what it looks like first and have a debate. I am just offering food for thought on the idea that if a law can be circumvented that stands as a reason to not have the law. The big question does become by what means do you prove your age? And how do we handle the tracking of search history that comes with this? I really don't know. That is a big conversation. We currently have a problem though and need to do something about it.I stated this upstream so hate to repost it but the point hasn’t been addressed. The booze and weed restrictions arguments are natural parallels, on the surface. But in reality are not similar at all. The restrictions on those actually have teeth because it requires a in-person age verifiable purchase. So of course any reasonable person can and should get behind them. As we all know that’s simply not the case online. Therefore any restrictions are going to be far far less effective and orders of magnitude easier to circumvent. Is a restriction that comes with all the downsides (privacy, id safety, more government intervention, etc etc) really worth a sieve like law so we can feel like we’re “doing something”?Sure but I had to work pretty hard to get my hands on weed when I was 15 and 75% of my efforts failed. We've now lifted many of the regulations on marijuana and it's become easier than ever for kids to get their hands on it- especially in nearly impossible to trace edibles and vapes. Of course some kids are going to find ways around any restriction but we should at least consider some restrictions so we don't flood the market so much that they become ubiquitous. Obstacles will prevent some people from accessing either because they can't figure it out or because it's enough effort to get them to reconsider. On a very simply term, think of it like an adult with a drinking problem. It's probably a good idea they dump out all their bottles of liquor. Sure at any point they can get in their car and go buy a bottle but that little extra effort and the fact the bottles aren't just staring at them in the kitchen is often enough of a barrier to keep people a little more sober.Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
How would they control life if all kids will just easily bypass it?Well my argument at least isn’t that we shouldn’t try, it’s that this isn’t the right solution. We haven’t found the right solution yet. But I think if we are going to result to government intervention, i.e. them having more control over our lives, then we need to be incredibly diligent and thoughtful about any law that does that. Government by and large is incredibly inefficient and easily corruptible. I personally don’t want to give them any more control than we absolutely have to.Can somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.
I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.
Why isn't every liquor cabinet in every house in America required to have a combo lock or age verification?
Because it's the parent's house, the parent's children, and the parent's responsibility. That's why.
You’re being specific (which I answered with my first 2 sentences) but I’m also talking about a concept. How I feel about any law, including ones like this, is addressed via the concept I’m speaking too (which I addressed with the remaining sentences).How would they control life if all kids will just easily bypass it?Well my argument at least isn’t that we shouldn’t try, it’s that this isn’t the right solution. We haven’t found the right solution yet. But I think if we are going to result to government intervention, i.e. them having more control over our lives, then we need to be incredibly diligent and thoughtful about any law that does that. Government by and large is incredibly inefficient and easily corruptible. I personally don’t want to give them any more control than we absolutely have to.Can somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.
I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.
Yeah two different discussions really.Where this really will apply is to a bigger audience on social media in general. Not just pornography sites.
Some are talking about seriously trying to limit access to social media for children. That's a big and important discussion.
I don't think so. Different subjects but the exact same question. How and if they are able to restrict people here may be totally related to how they restrict people from social media.Yeah two different discussions really.Where this really will apply is to a bigger audience on social media in general. Not just pornography sites.
Some are talking about seriously trying to limit access to social media for children. That's a big and important discussion.
How might be the same but whether they should or not sure seems like 2 very different discussions imo.I don't think so. Different subjects but the exact same question. How and if they are able to restrict people here may be totally related to how they restrict people from social media.Yeah two different discussions really.Where this really will apply is to a bigger audience on social media in general. Not just pornography sites.
Some are talking about seriously trying to limit access to social media for children. That's a big and important discussion.
Agree here. Not allowing kids on social media sites is a way different animal than not allowing kids on porn sites. The latter is like a 99% approval rate, the former has gotta be way closer to 50/50How might be the same but whether they should or not sure seems like 2 very different discussions imo.I don't think so. Different subjects but the exact same question. How and if they are able to restrict people here may be totally related to how they restrict people from social media.Yeah two different discussions really.Where this really will apply is to a bigger audience on social media in general. Not just pornography sites.
Some are talking about seriously trying to limit access to social media for children. That's a big and important discussion.
VPN companies are standing byKids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
and in this realm, I know we older people think kids are all tech wizards. They are not. They know how to use Snapchat, filter and edit pictures for IG, have a sick run on Subway Surfers but most don't have a clue what a VPN is yet alone how to use one.VPN companies are standing byKids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
VPNs are essentially free, right? What's the revenue model for a VPN company?
and in this realm, I know we older people think kids are all tech wizards. They are not. They know how to use Snapchat, filter and edit pictures for IG, have a sick run on Subway Surfers but most don't have a clue what a VPN is yet alone how to use one.VPN companies are standing byKids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
VPNs are essentially free, right? What's the revenue model for a VPN company?
Yes they do. Or at least the ones I knowand in this realm, I know we older people think kids are all tech wizards. They are not. They know how to use Snapchat, filter and edit pictures for IG, have a sick run on Subway Surfers but most don't have a clue what a VPN is yet alone how to use one.VPN companies are standing byKids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.![]()
VPNs are essentially free, right? What's the revenue model for a VPN company?